With regards to the original post:
This kind of thing hits close to home for me; for me, nothing sucks the life out of a game faster than being suddenly surrounded by an impenetrable GM pity force field(tm).
One of my PFS characters was in a somewhat similar situation once. He died in the first encounter of the scenario (oops). At that point, I wanted to stay dead until the end of the scenario and get raised afterwards. However, I ended up letting the GM cajole me into getting a Raise Dead and rejoining. From there on, we stumbled through one painful encounter after another and we were only "saved" by heavy, heavy GM pity-fudging (e.g. enemies declining to focus their attacks on wounded PCs, overly sympathetic readings of how monster special abilities work, etc.). It was a mess, and it soured me on PFS for a while afterwards. Sometimes a clean death is more fun. :-(
|
Umm I am siding with Kerney on this one. As a veteran GM you need to take your emotions out of the equation, especially when the creature you are using(like say a SHADOW) has none other than pure hatred of the living. While some have stated that this is an intelligent undead and wouldn't continue attacking the same person because they were no longer a "threat". As an undead creature that wants nothing more than to cause the living to suffer it's plight it would absoloutely continue to drain one character until it was dead. This is even more evident because most intelligent undead can cause a defeated living to become like them, even Ghouls. Thus to be undead is a horrible thing and the idea of spreading your suffering is the small amount of joy you get. A shadow, while intelligent, does not have morals or fear, and wants to destroy all living. Therefore it isn't going to say "wow you are colse to becoming like me, I think I will go and attack the very healthy one who may cause my true death rather than bring you to my side".
|
|
With regards to the original post:
This kind of thing hits close to home for me; for me, nothing sucks the life out of a game faster than being suddenly surrounded by an impenetrable GM pity force field(tm).
One of my PFS characters was in a somewhat similar situation once. He died in the first encounter of the scenario (oops). At that point, I wanted to stay dead until the end of the scenario and get raised afterwards. However, I ended up letting the GM cajole me into getting a Raise Dead and rejoining. From there on, we stumbled through one painful encounter after another and we were only "saved" by heavy, heavy GM pity-fudging (e.g. enemies declining to focus their attacks on wounded PCs, overly sympathetic readings of how monster special abilities work, etc.). It was a mess, and it soured me on PFS for a while afterwards. Sometimes a clean death is more fun. :-(
This is a good reason why GM's need to know the module very well and know they party strength. While I havenever fudge rolls or intentionally tried to keep players alive during a combat. I have had them find some consumables in treasure that help them during the adventure, nothing serious, but a few cure potions or maybe a lesser restoration, simple stuff. A GM should always gauge the survivability of a party, but remmeber that sometimes bad things happen.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
"wow you are colse to becoming like me, I think I will go and attack the very healthy one who may cause my true death rather than bring you to my side"
Tactical/ thinking like the enemy:
If the shadow is healthy he might be worried about spawns. If it's likely to die in the next couple rounds to see it's spawn rise then it's far more likely to try and address the more immediate threats attacking it to stay alive.
Meta/ thinking like the GM:
Killing this one PC and spawning a second shadow is likely to end the entire party which isn't any fun.
Alt/ Meta/ Reading the module:
What are the tactics for the creature listed in the module? Does it say anything about trying to spawn or avoiding it? I have no idea, do you?
IMO it's foolish to judge someone's GMing (or playing) in absentia.
I think this is important to remember: Some modules tell the GM to follow certain tactics that are not optimal. This usually is done, IMO, because the writer isn't there to adjust for the all gnome bard party that cannot beat DR 5.
|
I have had them find some consumables in treasure that help them during the adventure, nothing serious, but a few cure potions or maybe a lesser restoration, simple stuff.So you know, this is not allowed. PFS GMs are to run scenarios as written.
You know, when I started this wasn't quite so clear (we only had seasons 0-1). As season 2-3 came out, the adventures became tougher and the warnings to run as written more explicit, this became a less common practice. Still, 'back in the day' a lot of GMs tweaked the modules in remarkably non abusive ways, and in some areas it was accepted practice.
It's against the rules, but it is a rule I think a lot of people winked and nodded at in the past and occasionally still do.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still, 'back in the day' a lot of GMs tweaked the modules in remarkably non abusive ways, and in some areas it was accepted practice.
It's against the rules, but it is a rule I think a lot of people winked and nodded at in the past and occasionally still do.
*sigh*
"Non-abusive".
Lots of people seem to like to talk about their practices being "non-abusive". The thing is, they're usually only non-abusive if you never ever look beyond your own table.
Sure, toss in a couple extra healing potions and let the PCs have an easier time - after all, if the players have fun, then it's all good, right?
Except what happens when someone who's used to playing under a GM who softens things up plays under a different GM and suddenly can't handle the challenge?
Or what happens when Jack finds out that Jill hasn't had to spend as much of her tightly-controlled wealth on consumables as Jack has? Is Jack going to agree that it was "non-abusive"?
Or how about when a GM likes to add/buff monsters (all in the name of "fun") but then a few levels down the road the PC's increased expenditures on consumables to deal with the extra threats starts to catch up with him and he finds that he's running around at higher tiers with inferior gear and struggling to keep up?
Or when a player thinks his GM's habits of extra potion-dropping are the norm, and suddenly the first GM he encounters who does exactly what he's supposed to gets labeled as the "bad guy"?
Fudging the rules might seem "non-abusive" or "fun" at the time, but it can very easily have repercussions down the road, either for your own players or for other players or even other GMs.
Nine times out of ten, "non-abusive" really just means "I'm too short-sighted to realize how my actions will affect people beyond the here and now (or in worse cases, simply too selfish to care about those effects)". Just because you don't see the impact during that session doesn't mean your actions are harmless.
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
I'm once again with Jiggy. One of the major points of organized play is to give everyone who plays each scenario a similar experience. That means GM's running the scenarios the same as another GM on the other side of the continent/world runs theirs. If everyone were to tweak the scenarios as they see fit, that would go against the OP experience.
|
|
I was simply reporting the different circumstances in the past. Saying that happened and was sometimes is still accepted is just that, explaining a past situation.
It was the atmosphere I first encountered when playing PFS. In very limited situations I still sometimes think its appropriate, for example, when I had an 8 year old player and a subplot that involved prostitution.
But I won't condenm others for past actions. The game has changed and evolved.
|
I think it's a mis-interpretation to label the Shadow as intelligent. It has a score of 6, which is at best "slow" and more than likely mentally handicapped by normal evaluations. Thinking that it will have great in-depth tactical thoughts evaluating the cause and effect of its actions is unlikely.
Traditionally, a fighter/barbarian with an Int of 7 has been regarded as a "hulk smash" character. There is no reason to think of the Shadow any differently. IMO, it would instinctively attack the downed character, sensing that it was on the verge of draining its last essence of life. As Jason L said, the shadow would probably derive its only happiness (if there is such a thing) from snuffing out life.
|
My question on this topic is:
Isn't the GM correct in preventing a character from commiting suicide under the PvP rule?
I do understand a character causing their own death heroically. Say instead of laying there and plunging a dagger in his throat, if he had made another attack (throw dagger at Shadow) to draw the attack and give his teammates another "free" round of attacks.
I admit I do have the ick feeling about suicide, so I might be bias.
|
|
IMO it's foolish to judge someone's GMing (or playing) in absentia.
True enough. GMing can be a lot like taking on a black diamond ski run for the first time... you have to be flexible in your approach and compensate where/when you can... oh, and you will likely fall down at some point. :-)
It's easy to say you "should've done X" when you weren't experiencing it first-hand. Good point, Dennis.
|
|
Changing Fluff is not what Jiggy was talking about.... for example, when I had an 8 year old player and a subplot that involved prostitution.
I get that. I will rephrase this.
Once upon a time, a great Frost Giant ruled the land. Oracles had not been named and the caviler was a fossil from first edition. There was season 0. It was good but there was a transition from 3.5 to Pathfinder. People wondered what to do and the Frost giant was overwhelmed with his many duties.
So they experimented, especially when creatures which didn't 'match up' between the bestiary and the monster manual. Also, season 1 was seen as wimpy, so they added a mook or two or otherwise made minor changes. Thing was, the great bible called RAW was nebulous as to whether this was allowed, so people did what they felt they could/should do.
Eventually, 2nd and 3rd season came out. The challenges were tougher. The rules became more explicit that such practices were frowned upon.
However, people still wonder when they pick up season 0 modules what to do when the monster manual and the bestiary do not match, or the challenge that was just right for a 3.5 character is too easy for a PFS character. Of course season 0 is seldom played anymore so it is less of an issue. Now there is guidience in the FAQ and even this is less of an issue. But sometimes you realize there is a problem in the heat of the moment. So the great majority (aside from few bad apples) do what they should do...their best with a quick judgement call.
And to be too judgemental on the past or increasingly less common present situations seems a little unkind.
This is a different issue from whether a GM is calling his shots or not. So I'm sorry if my response sidetracked the conversation.
|
I will add my two cents a a person who has played from original D&D to now playing pfs ,, I have wrote and ran countless campaigns and never look to kill a pc but if in the process of the game it happens where i roll well and the pc doesnt i can not or will not pull back and let them live . I haven't run a pfs game yet though I plan too soon and will be sure to let the players all know ahead of time that the fate of their characters are truly in their hands and the dice .. my decisions are never based on a awww well i wont kill you or i will kill you schematic. I will say if a character oblately does something like charging a small band of guards empty handed that I'd have no issue whatsoever striking them down if the dice rolls made it so .
Now in this instance I as a GM would have used the shade to its upmost abilities and made you a shade upon a next hit or if you won a roll off allowed you to stop such an act by using your dagger to off yourself in a heroic way thereby saving perhaps the entire group in the process.Perhaps the rest of he party would all morune your loss or a great song or peom come from your death who knows . Either way by luck or circumstance you would have felt death because fate had echoed it out in such a way as the roll of dice . This is supposed to be a game where we are immercing oursleves in characters and truly putting our emotions in the game so to have it limited to ohh ,, well i can't let you die or will fudge this or that to me is dead wrong in a more ethical gamesmanship way than even against a rule for running games at pfs . Had you however failed the roll to know what would happen to you if you were killed i'd have expected as well for you to play and work just as hard at living as you would of at dying . it is roleplaying at its finest , a lost art i have found even in the pfs games . too ften it is go here kill this or that and do faction missions where little to no real character roleplay is involved . Do all the factions really get along so well that if you knew someone was say silver crusade or andoran and you were let's say shoadow lodge you wouldnt perhaps try to influence how their mission went . all in all to me it is most important the players enjoy themselves but also at the same time they need to show me a willingness to roleplay and be their chracter for the brief time they are playing .. I.E .. having a bard sing or whatever at a table since he is doing such to inspire the party is a good thing to me though rarely is it seen . well i've lost track of the topic it seems but hope you understand this isn't criticism on PFS or the GM . I am just saying how i would have handled it . I'd have sent a note to the player we would have rolled a new initiative between us and whoever won would have gotten to do what they wished .. either death by shade . or death by own hand . if death by shade however when the new shade formed i'd have made the pc roll for it and also roll for perhaps an angered memory trapped eep within towards a specific PC in the party so who to attack first . but again that's my two cents and maybe why i won't be DMing much PFS lolololol .. I may be too hard on pcs .
|
|
Kerney, I would have whacked your PC in this situation. After that you could have returned with a new Bard (you seem trustworthy, join our group) and the game woiuld have gone on.
Suicide is a little touchy, but in the sense of not becoming a bad guy, I may have allowed that as well.
The real shame is spending the rest of the game doing nothing and being the focus of the jokes. As a GM, the better option would have been to whack you and let you start with a new PC (less XP, etc. for croaking).
I think you should have talked to the GM and shared your concerns and he probably would have fixed it.
As far as modifying Season 0 scenario's - I did it. They were not written thinking that 6 fully optimized PC's would show up and crush the bad guys. As written, they were boring. I told the players I was going to try to challange them a little more, they agreed, we had a good time, no PC's were killed. 30 years of GMing allows me the expertise to do such a thing and I would not recommend it for new GMs. All the new scenarios are written well and I do not change those one bit and run them as written and to the letter of the tactic's, even if I would not normally do that myself. This type of an issue is a dead one because it is not needed for new scenario's and will require a new thread if anyone wants to continue the discussion so we don't derail Kerney's initial question.
good stuff
+1
Let the PCs be PCs.
PS. So nosig, what you are saying is if you want to kill yourself (in-game), you're more effective by casting confusion on yourself?
I really hate killing players. Not many GMs like itLaw enforcement usually discourages the killing of players as well :-)I'm very glad about this. I would retire as a PFS if the game required me to kill players.
As for the other points--
1)I could get behind the interpretation that I couldn't do enough damage to myself, has too helpless etc. What happened at the table, after a bit of discussion after I declared my action (most players were also PFS GMs) was that I got the impression, after a will save that I would be able to off myself. Instead I did 1 HP. I do think this was a genuine misunderstanding.
But it did make me feel that my decision was trivial and that there was a bit GM control.2) However, I also didn't feel at that moment, there was enough to call him on it. There is a line as to being a whiny player, questioning a GM's call, calling out a GM when they are being unfair. I wasn't sure what side of the line I was one and how the other players would perceive it. So I hesitated. Nothing was as blatant as a GM fiat.
However, I have no doubt, based off conversation during the lunch break, that he was pulling his punches, either to spare me or to avoid a TPK and I think the former. The reason behind this is the XP loss came up and he seemed concerned that I got 'my share'. At that point I also gathered that essentially, his heart was in the right place, in that he was sympathetic to a character who would die from essentially an unlucky crit in the first round.
I didn't really want to punish the GM for that by making a scene. I also sent the note saying 'kill me', because I sensed the hesitation on his part. I saw it as saying to a hesitant GM, don't pull punches. He might have seen as 'I don't want to go through the session as a 1 str gimp.'
3) Funny, I didn't even occur to me that players/the GM might have perfectly natural ick factor about suicide. Of course, I was the person who felt at times BSG wasn't grim/dark...
As a DM its a fine line to kill a PC. Some players see it as "your out to get me" and keep that line of thought. Some are like you what ever happens to a PC happens. I learned to attak all my PCs equally and let the players make the call to use thier heads in combat and if a PC death happens so be it. Noone can control how the dice rolls and I would have killed your PC and hoped to gain another SHADOW to deal with the rest of the party. Don't take it wrong if your DM slacked off on you. He might have ran it this debate in the past and bad blood with a player occured. Keep the RPing and enjoy the game. Talk with your DM to see where his stand point is and you can relay yours. A good DM will listen and come to an understanding with you.
|
|
It does seem to me like most monsters would go after the players who are active threats to them before finishing off the guy who's already on the ground. I mean, once you hit 1 str, you're falling over and no longer attacking - that makes you an ignorable piece of the scenery, while the shadow goes after your peers who are still trying to hurt it. So I don't blame the DM for switching targets, or think that he just went easy on you.
I do think he should have let you kill your character, though. Suicide should be allowed under the rules, as long as the characters have a means to pull it off.
|
|
Correct me if I am wrong but in PFS modules you can't really "die" anyway can you? You just lose 1 xp/prestige and respawn video game style anyway right?
In this case since there is very little actual risk to the PCs I would have played the monster to the hilt and went for the jugular. As it is there is very little dramatic tension since permanent death is out of the question to begin with.
For now. Module play may very well change. But as things sit, you have a point.
|
|
It does seem to me like most monsters would go after the players who are active threats to them before finishing off the guy who's already on the ground. I mean, once you hit 1 str, you're falling over and no longer attacking - that makes you an ignorable piece of the scenery, while the shadow goes after your peers who are still trying to hurt it. So I don't blame the DM for switching targets, or think that he just went easy on you.
Most enemies will want to ignore disabled/fallen PCs, however Shadows want to:
A) Snuff out the life of the livingB) Spawn an ally when someone dies.
From a strategic point of view (and probably instinctually for the shadow), it makes no sense at all that he'd switch targets. I guess everyone is allowed to have their own opinion, but we already have enough enemies that switch opponents when someone goes down, it makes no sense at all that you'd play a Shadow exactly like a humanoid enemy.
|
|
Outside of the character of a brand new player, I don't understand feeling bad when a PC dies. As long as you approach the game fairly and don't take pride in killing characters, sometimes it just happens. I've killed my share, not a large number, and I don't feel bad, nor do I want a GM to feel bad for me if one of my PC's bites it.
For once I agree with Sir Bob.
I had a situation last week. We were going through Crypt of the Everflame and we meet a Shadow. My character, 1st level so don't have much invested in it is crited and takes 11 points str damage one round and another 2 points the next round, leaving me to a 1 str.
I recognise that I am dead meat or should be dead meat and try to to coup de grace my character so he doesn't become a shadow. GM makes me do a will save (fair enough) and then lets me do 1 point of damange to myself. It's evident the GM will not let me die that way (and I could see it taking a little while considering I'm at 1 str) but then the shadow doesn't finish me off, choosing to turn on the other characters. I send him a note requesting that he let me put myself out of my misery.
Instead my character is rescued, tied to a donkey and gains the nickname, 'donkey boy' and is basically a joke (that I smile and laugh because, well, it's a game and good manners and yes, a little funny even to me). But I'm still mildly annoyed that the GM didn't let my character die somewhat heroically rather than become a joke. Basically, the death was appropriate, tactically the right thing to do (either from my standpoint or the Shadow's).
But I'm a little annoyed at the GM for not playing it straight and protecting the character than if he had let me die. I wonder what people's various feeling are in such situations?
Wow, did your post bring back a memory. I had a simular thing happen to me while playing a three year long sandbox 3.5 game. My character was in a situation where he was basically made a spawn of evil due to my screw up. Now, it was my fault, so I wanted to go along with it but I found the character had no chance in h*ll to be my character anymore.
Here's what I did, during "the change" I rolled a will save (sucess) and asked my party to kill me. The DM, noting I was about to leave the game fudged an idea and I was back, but a negative level.
So, here's my thought. There HAS to be a point where the GM/DM says, "hmmmm this isn't good for the group". I have GM many o game and still believe that there are must be consquences for actions, but there's a time and place to note its a game. Most gamers know that their player can/will die and are cool with that, but to completely take that option away is, sorry to say, bullsh*t.
From what I saw in your posts, the GM played the "monster" correctly and I hope it was a matter of him/her just wanting not to kill you off and trying to "help" also. I still think at that moment, after your roll and effort, he/she should have seen what you were wanting to do and "helped" you to go out like a hero.
|
Why don't you ask him? In private?
But seriously, I don't understand what's a big deal with it. People most of time don't like being instant killed or without even getting a chance to react or recover. You were down pretty fast and shifting NPC attacks is what GMs do always as they see it fit. If you complained that he refused to kill your char for 5th time in game, I would say okay, he is probably a bit too merciful. But on lv1 ? Having some pity is fine.
Realisticly speaking, 50% of chars would die on first levels with proper challenge.
Ask yourself would your character beg for help? Most players don't even know what they play.
Beside that, there is some of us who refuse to kill lv1 chars unless they ask for it.
|
|
I recently played in a scenario where my 5th lvl rouge pretty much got bisected by a huge t-rex skeleton in the second round of combat. I already felt unhappy with the way that I wrote this character up to begin with. It was a niche-filler (And unfortunately for me, also my first PFS/rouge character ever...) that I tried to make fun for myself while learning the game.
My GM spared her by "miscalculating" the initial damage that the t-rex skeleton did less damage. (It wasn't a critical hit, but again this character has been one ill-bought/trained mistake after another for me.)
I was more than ready to let the dice fall as they may and from that point on, if she died, then I'd let her stay dead.
But, that same rouge is not 6th lvl and I hope it will survive long enough for me to play the faction ending scenario for Shadow Lodge later this summer. I'm not proud of this character's progress, but it's the only one I have that is high enough level for the majority of scenarios that I'm able to go to.
It is kind of a tricky subject. If you want your character to die, whether it's in a heroic blaze of glory, in a failed reflex save after you made a bad call, or if you& your character are tired of that character living,
if it keeps the game going & you still have fun letting this happen, the GM should let the character die.
Besides, not staying dead is one of the things you can use prestige point for, right?
|
Whelp, I only just now discovered this thread. And what the heck? I do not believe at all that a GM should make you succeed will saves to put yourself out of your misery. If a character has been severely damaged and is at risk of turning on its allies, I fully believe it should have the right to self-terminate. Dying in a heroic manner such as that is far from a bad story, in my opinion. That aside, soft balling is also a big no-no for me. I don't think I'd even be willing to play under a GM if I caught them soft balling without some damn justifiable cause.